While all eyes were on the economic meltdown, congress quietly snuck in a very useful and important piece of legislation, signed into law September 25th: the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
The amendment clarified the definition of "disability" to undo several Supreme Court rulings that had narrowed the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act so severely that "An individual [might] be considered too disabled by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the courts to be protected by the A.D.A. from discrimination," according to the House bill's primary sponsor, Representative Steny Hoyer (D).
A seemingly simple wording change will make all the difference to employees seeking to claim discrimination under the ADA. Congress has clarified "disability" to include anything that "materially restricts" a major life activity and to explicitly include conditions of an episodic nature. It also states that the law shall be construed in broad favor of individuals under the act.
The ADA Amendmens Act, which is estimated to cost less than $1 per taxpayer, passed the House by an enormous margin and the Senate by unanimous consent. This is a major step forward for workers with disabilities, and something to celebrate.
I also blogged about this legislation at Careers.org.
Inevitably, there will be a lot of blame thrown around in the next days and weeks. This is what Nancy Pelosi actually said.
Whatever your feelings about her opinion of republicans and democrats, do you think that would be a valid reason to vote against the bill? Do you think that's why the bill failed? (I personally doubt it, I know many people were not happy about the bailout plan and I think some reps were looking for a way out.)
This Saturday you went on national television and asked, dismissively, WHAT important votes did McCain miss that Barack Obama didn't? I know it's kind of dull to keep track of all this stuff, but you know, it's a matter of public record. I agree with Tom Foreman that every vote in the United States Senate is important, but since you asked, I thought I'd make you a little list.
1. The new GI Bill. Are you going to tell us this was not an important piece of legislation? Please explain that to the nation's veterans. Barack Obama voted yes on this legislation which extended educational benefits for the military.
2. An Amendment on Certain Energy-Related Programs, Including the Development of Oil and Natural Gas in Coastal Areas - Mr. "Drill Baby Drill" did not show up for this vote, Barack Obama voted yes. That same day, Obama voted no on a similar measure that would have included oil shale. McCain has criticized him for this vote (leaving out the fact that he voted yes on an alternative measure) but apparently didn't consider it to be important enough to show up.
3. The Energy Act of 2007 - For development of biofuels, research and development in alternative energies and sustainability. Barack Obama voted yes, McCain once again did not show up.
4. The Timeline for Withdrawal in Iraq - I know how strongly McCain has opposed this, which is why I am surprised to find that he did not consider it worth voting "no" on this measure.
5. The Equal Pay Bill - I know how much John McCain values the contribution of women, after all he has selected a female running mate. Unfortunately that value does not extend to supporting equal pay for equal work, and he is on record as opposing this bill. (Although he did not vote.) Why did he not support it? Because it would have resulted in law suits. Well, yeah, Senator, that is how civil rights legislation is enforced. If you have another way please let me know.
6. A vote to end a fillibuster on alternative energy subsidies. Again, given McCain's expressed interest in energy production, I'm wondering why no vote? Anyway, that measure died.
Well, that's just a little taste. I haven't included all of those instances in which McCain voted and we probably wish he didn't, particularly on veterans' issues.
First some of the soft stuff: I watched the debate on MSNBC, which had the candidates in split screen most of the time. I think I had a more favorable opinion of McCain's performance (as opposed to his points) than did those who watched him avoid looking at Obama all night. When I saw it from a different angle in later footage, it definitely gave me a more negative impression of McCain. Definitely reminiscent of the Kennedy/Nixon debate, not that I was alive to see that in real time.
Watching that video clip I am struck by something: McCain's performance may actually have been worse than Nixon, who appeared gracious and acknowledged the areas in which he and Kennedy agreed. Anyone who watched the debate last night, from any angle, couldn't miss McCain's dismissiveness and attempts to diminish Obama's opinions as naivete. Nixon actually looked quite hail and hearty in comparison to McCain's sideways snicker, hunched back and continual blinking. (Yes, I realize some of these things may have been due to his long-ago injuries, I'm just describing how it looked.) And nobody can fail to notice that the stars come out when Obama smiles, which he did often, and spectacularly.
But on to the issues. McCain looked pleased to pull this rabbit out of his hat, although it's been in his economic plan all along - a fact the press doesn't seem to acknowledge:
MCCAIN: How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.
LEHRER: Spending freeze?
MCCAIN: I think we ought to seriously consider with the exceptions the caring of veterans national defense and several other vital issues.
Yes, Jim Lehrer, a spending freeze. A one-year freeze on all discretionary spending with the exception of "caring of veterans"? and national defense. This has been in McCain's platform for some time, and the thought of someone that erratic and arbitrary determining what is and isn't "vital" makes my blood run cold.
I thought Obama had a great response, one which showed he, at least, had read his opponent's platform and was waiting for this to come up:
OBAMA: The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded. I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy doesn't make sense.
Let me tell you another place to look for some savings. We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close.
Great response, yes? Well, I guess it depends on your opinion of how the Iraq war should play out, although that hatchet remark was a great soundbite. But notice something else that cropped up there: Early Childhood Education.
Remember a couple of days ago, that post about McCain's pre-k plan? Why does the Obama campaign not seize upon this as an example of the extremely poor effort of the McCain campaign on domestic issues? I don't know, but they should. If I were able to whisper into Obama's ear, I'd have told him to take that example and run with it - not just as a program that he wants, but as an example of why McCain cannot be trusted to make these huge budgetary cuts. Hopefully, future debates will provide more of an opportunity to corner McCain on some of these domestic issues.
Another telling soundbite, which everyone seems to have missed:
And have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we're not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We're talking about failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes...
OK, losing jobs, homes...credits? What? It may be a minor thing, but I think it is a little bit of a "tell" - I think it has been a long time since John McCain has had to worry about his credit (if ever) but most of us just would never make an error like that, since "credit" tends to rule our lives, but "credits" are something that rolls down the screen at the end of a movie. Credit does not have a plural, it is not any one thing but rather the big wheel in the sky that grinds us all into dust....Not to get too macro-cosmic, there.
Opinion on the debate seems to vary from "not a game changer" to "McCain won on points" to "Obama in a landslide" and only time will tell. But let's not forget to listen to what the candidates say, while we're busy watching snap polls.
Everything seems really irrelevant today. But despite the weirdness of the past two days the election is still up for grabs and there's still plenty to talk about.
After I wrote that long veterans post the other day, Lawyer Mama posted this video at MOMocrats. Thought I'd pass it on.
Dude. I think I'm a reasonably smart person. I mean, I have a professional license and sh*t, you know? But this stuff completely boggles my mind. I remember those people in law school who could somehow fight their way to the top of the evil C+ curve, putting them in the top 1 - 2% that would qualify them to go on to a position like Constitutional Law Professor. I was not one of those people. But Barack Obama was (is). I want him in office figuring sh*t out for me. Take my word for it, you do too.
One of the things I learned in law school is that there is a lot that I don't know. Specifically, there are many things that I will not know, despite looking very hard at a book for hours, trying to force my brain to care. Bank regulation would be one of those things. So, I recognized that "pleasedontcallonme pleasedontcallonme pleasedontcallonme" look on John McCain's face at the White House meeting yesterday. Brought back memories of antitrust class, circa 1999.
Fortunately, people smarter than me have opinions on this issue.
Punditmom put up a great post this morning describing her experiences as an attorney for the SEC. It all kind of boils down to this: "if you don't keep a close eye on people, when it comes to money, sometimes they can't help themselves." (Wait a minute - I do understand that!) She also passed on a link to this video, originally posted by thesoccermomvote:
Marcy Kaptur is officially my hero. Watching the news today, it's impossible not to notice the gamesmanship involved in these bailout negotiations, and it's a little nauseating. OK, a lot nauseating. Not in an I've been up too late partying and feel sick kind of way, more like an "ohmigod I have a fever I think I'm going to die" kind of way.
It's taken 20+ years to get us into this mess, and apparently we have to solve it right now. today. before the debate. Or? I don't know. But here are the actual issues that are holding back a compromise right now:
House republicans would like to see a bill that injects private capital, rather than tax dollars, into the market. --Wait, shouldn't that be a good thing? Well...the way we'll make that happen is by "easing tax laws" to encourage private investment. Huh. Really, right now, a tax cut? The Treasury Secretary himself says this will not work.
Also an issue in contention: "golden parachutes." I can't find too much detailed coverage of the issue today, but there has been talk in the past of not wanting to cave into republican demands for the personal financial bail out of CEOs.
Whatever decision is reached, I'm with Marcy Kaptur. Please. Please. Let them make it for the right reasons and leave gaming out of it.
The phrase gets thrown around a lot lately, but what does it mean? Kitchen Table Issues are the issues that voters like me, 30 something middle class parents, are said to care about most.
[Kitchen table issues are] best defined as the sort of everyday concerns that confront ordinary folks on a daily basis. Traditional economic issues tend to the abstract: inflation rates, unemployment numbers, GDP growth, and the fluctuations of the stock market. But kitchen table issues comprise the concrete: bill paying, food purchases, tuition bills, vacation plans, and family heath care coverage.
That sounds about right to me. These are the things that wake me up in the middle of the night, (well, probably not "vacation plans") and I don't think I'm alone.
